Talking about the current situation and future of GameFi (chain game)

Foreword: The entire GameFi (chain game) track is fast and cool. It has already entered a major reshuffle. Those chain games that survive can not be said to be very high-quality chain games, but it is certain that, There are certain advantages and characteristics in the similar track mode. I have collected some information to start talking about the current situation and future of GameFi and P2E.
Let’s talk about the definition of GameFi first

Except that GameFi is more refined and anti-whale, most GameFi and DeFi projects are actually the same. The premise of P2E is that enough newcomers enter the market to receive the market, and the token distribution model is flat enough to extend the life cycle of the project with limited user revenue, but it cannot solve the problem of the game’s lack of playability in the long-term.

Talking about the current situation and future of GameFi (chain game)

Game attribute or financial attribute

GameFi’s “Fi” is because it has financial attributes. P2E and DeFi infrastructure are the bridges connecting “Game” and “Fi”, and P2E is also a key factor affecting the game life cycle. At present, a large number of players are not attracted by gameplay, but only for revenue. Therefore, the depth of the second pool of tokens, buying, distribution rate, and distribution mode directly limit the life cycle of the game.

At present, a large number of games do not have the so-called gameplay, but just a pension model in which new entrants take over the old players. The so-called game designer is not increasing the gameplay, but trying to extend the life cycle of the game like the Pond’s engineer.

P2E paradox

Therefore, the proposition of P2E may itself be a paradox. The revenue of traditional games falls into the pockets of the company and the goldsmithing studio (and the game company is still trying to prevent goldsmithing studios), while the revenue of the chain game is divided between the development team and ordinary players. Why do companies with high-quality game development capabilities share money with players, and why teams with bot development capabilities don’t grab this piece of cake for a long time, and leave the profits to ordinary players.


GameFi is more refined because most of the projects are independently developed contracts, with different skins in the similar Pond’s mode, using single token (BSC early game), dual token (such as Axie Infinity), gold standard (such as CryptoMines) and other different forms try to extend the life cycle of the game. Looking back at the previous chain games, the biggest problem with GameFi is that the player’s profit rate is too high. If the profit is reduced, the game can live longer.

A game as strong as Axie Infinity, and no one can stop the continued downward trend of SLP. The most hurt this time is the whales who did not play Axie Infinity but hope to participate in GameFi’s prosperous ecology. They rarely saw the pool without the upper limit of capital capacity, but it became the rate of return for the gold bulls.

Talking about the current situation and future of GameFi (chain game)


GameFi fights whales because individuals cannot enter a game with a large amount of money. GameFi is not like DeFi. The rich and the poor can enjoy the same rate of return. Instead, players need to invest a certain amount of time for each capital invested in them in exchange for a share of income. Therefore, for whales who do not have the ability to develop bots, they cannot enter a game as large as participating in a DeFi project.

Gold robot

From the bot point of view, the bot of the chain game needs to be highly customized according to each game (unlike DeFi in most scenarios that can be slightly modified to achieve interoperability), so the cost of writing bots increases. However, the increase in the cost of writing bots does not mean that no one writes bots, but that there are fewer people sharing the cake compared to DeFi, and everyone gets a bigger cake.

As an individual developer, because the development cycle of each bot is long, and the life cycle of the game is unstable (even the development of the game has not yet been completed and has reached the end), most of the time individual developers do not have the energy to develop each game one by one. bot. Therefore, more professional and collaborative bot development is needed (the largest studio I know has more than 60 developers), and individual developers will continue to choose to stay in the DeFi ecosystem to develop new bots or iterate existing bots.

A bot is like a gold-making studio for traditional online games, and the ultimate scenario of a bot rampant is that the income of individual players is so small that it is impossible to obtain income from the game with personal ability. From this perspective, they were also P2E before Dajin studios settled in traditional online games.

It is even more impractical to resist bots. Even games such as Glory of the Kings and PlayerUnknown’s Battlegrounds can have gold studios and plug-ins. How dare a chain game say that it can resist scripts and plug-ins.

Talking about the current situation and future of GameFi (chain game)

The reason and result of P2E

Compared with traditional games, chain games can realize P2E because the game assets can be easily exchanged for legal currency, and in essence they still enjoy the dividends of the blockchain. Traditional games can also be P2E, but the channel for game assets to exchange legal currency requires a lot of costs to get through (such as maintaining Taobao stores), which is more difficult for individuals. If there is no P2E, why do games need blockchain?

The result of the low-wear P2E on the chain is that players will measure the opportunity cost for each behavior, because the dollar value of the tokens in their hands is clearly visible only by opening the DEX, and it can be easily turned into legal currency to withdraw.

Final summary

Based on the above premise, I feel that guilds that only attract large-scale players and scholars cannot survive this competition, because a mature small team can build hundreds or thousands of bots to simulate users, and these user behaviors It can simulate real players. The value capture of the guild also requires other forms of effort (such as e-sports).

At the same time, a mature game should have “no optimal solution”. At present, the optimal solution for all games is to sell mercilessly, and a truly qualified game should have a sufficiently complex mechanism so that the bot can only participate in a scenario with low marginal utility, while the truly high value-added decisions and behaviors are consistent with the current game. Status is related (for example, in EVE, what should you buy now?).

Traditional online games also have gold-making studios, and gold-making studios are only involved in a small part of the game ecology. Other gameplay and mechanisms are stacked on it so that the output of gold coins is not the only factor that affects gameplay, and therefore It’s hard to let the game economy system fall apart.

The most important thing is that the gameplay is good enough to make a game called a game.

Posted by:CoinYuppie,Reprinted with attribution to:
Coinyuppie is an open information publishing platform, all information provided is not related to the views and positions of coinyuppie, and does not constitute any investment and financial advice. Users are expected to carefully screen and prevent risks.